site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   3045 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for March 24, 2023

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is it just me, or is verbal debate as a method of determining which side is correct extremely over rated? It's fine as a spectator sport, but it's only a couple steps ahead of honor duels with blades to determine who's actually right. You can't check your opponent's source mid-debate if you're unfamiliar with it but suspicious it's of dubious quality, if you have a slip of a tongue or misphrase something you look like an idiot even if you're actually correct, the time limits are often too short to properly explain your point. In some debates, like ones in presidential elections, people will often interrupt and speak over each other.

The much more obvious alternative is to have written debates, like on a forum similar to this one, where you go back and forth replying with your opponent and having time to properly research and think out your arguments. I know the reason this isn't done is because it's much less entertaining, and that a lot of people probably don't have the patience to read 4000 dull words about economics or racism or whatever, but I'm still kind of surprised it's not like common knowledge that it'd be a better alternative.

Expected accuracy gain = number of viewers * probability of changing each viewer's mind * (probability the change was in the right direction - 0.5)

Performance during a debate is correlated with being correct, and having enough knowledge to know what you're talking about, and being founded on logical arguments rather than made up nonsense that breaks down immediately upon being confronted. It is weakly correlated with these things, which take a supporting role to charisma and public speaking skills, but they exist as a non-negligible part of the equation. Therefore, we expect the (probability the change was in the right direction) to be higher than 0.5 in most cases, though there can be exceptions for certain topics where the correct side is inherently difficult to understand or explain in a short time frame, or superficially distasteful despite being right if you deeply understand it.

And many more people are going to watch public debates and care about them than about written debates. Most people don't read on purpose. Many people are barely literate at all. And they and their opinions still matter, and persuading them is important. So a debate with a 70% chance of the correct side being more persuasive with 1 million views and a 5% chance of actually changing viewers' minds accomplishes more good than a debate with a 99% chance of the correct side being more persuasive with 100k readers and a 1% chance of changing each one's mind. As an individual, you're more likely to come away with accurate knowledge if you put forth the effort to read the thorough written arguments. But as a persuader you'll get more total support if you have the charisma to put forth entertaining and persuasive debates that more people will actually care about.

And many more people are going to watch public debates and care about them than about written debates. Most people don't read on purpose. Many people are barely literate at all. And they and their opinions still matter, and persuading them is important. So a debate with a 70% chance of the correct side being more persuasive with 1 million views and a 5% chance of actually changing viewers' minds accomplishes more good than a debate with a 99% chance of the correct side being more persuasive with 100k readers and a 1% chance of changing each one's mind. As an individual, you're more likely to come away with accurate knowledge if you put forth the effort to read the thorough written arguments. But as a persuader you'll get more total support if you have the charisma to put forth entertaining and persuasive debates that more people will actually care about.

I intuitively understood this although I didn't put numbers on it. My point is more just that I'm surprised more people don't talk about how written debate would be better and more prestigious, like how people talk about books are usually regarded more positively than movies even if movies get way more actual views.

No, it’s totally a spectator sport. And it’s used as such—for convincing viewers that one position is reasonable. Or that one team has the better charisma. It’s about demonstrating that real, functional people will stake their status on a position.

The same is true for an exchange of effortposts. Actually changing your interlocutor’s mind is rare, and usually depends on axioms. I’m not going to convince a theist that God doesn’t exist. But the format is valuable because other readers get a sense for whether those axioms fit them. It’s humanizing. To reach theists (or atheists or leftists or reactionaries or…), they need to know that their opponents are real and earnest. Long form posting is one way to signal that. So are public debates.

I'm talking about stuff like presidential debates before an election, or when internet political commentators debate each other on Twitch. Their goal isn't to change each other's minds, or to humanize themselves for viewers. It's to show viewers that the other side is wrong and that they are correct, ostensibly. But verbal debate fails at that. If their self-proclaimed goal was actually just for the debaters to have an opportunity to show off how earnest they are, I wouldn't have an issue with it, but I don't debates ever call that their goal.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats